Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
“Publishing Strategies for Career Academics and Research Students” - Professor Ken Boyer
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

“Publishing Strategies for Career Academics and Research Students” - Professor Ken Boyer

121
views

Published on

Part of the HDR Development Seminar Series, Professor Ken Boyer presented the following insights on: Editorial Philosophy; Impact Factors; On-line Review Process; JOM Decision Summary Flow Chart; …

Part of the HDR Development Seminar Series, Professor Ken Boyer presented the following insights on: Editorial Philosophy; Impact Factors; On-line Review Process; JOM Decision Summary Flow Chart; JOM has Global Reach; Publishing is about Good Science; Journal Timeliness; Be a Reviewer!: Keys to Publication Success; Teaching.

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. “Publishing Strategies for Career Academics andResearch Students”Dr. Ken BoyerCo-Editor, Journal of Operations Management, 2006 -2011
  • 2. Editorial Philosophy Criteria for successful publishing in the JOM  Addresses some aspect of “OM” (defined in the broadest sense)  Theory-driven, empirically based  Managerial relevance  “Not wrong” methodologically - a necessary but not sufficient condition Other sources of information:  Editorial, see JOM 24(6), 2006, 731-733  Guide for authors: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_hom e/523929/authorinstructions
  • 3. Editorial Philosophy What does “theory-driven, empirically based” mean?  How or Why some phenomenon occurs and/or affects performance.  How or Why there is a relationship between two or more factors or phenomena.  Studies that explain How and Why operational systems work  Empirical = based on observation Desk rejections (~49%) are usually:  Analytical or spreadsheet model to solve a specific problem  Proposal of a new or revised improvement program  Comparison of alternative decision methods  Illustration of some new management technique  Non-empirically based conclusions
  • 4. Some Suggestions Read the JOM Consider the audience and the editorial philosophy State the contributions… repeatedly Answer the “So what?” question
  • 5. ImpactFactors
  • 6. On-line Review Process Initial editor’s evaluation Double blind process  2-4 reviewers’ evaluations  Associate editor evaluation Final editor’s evaluation Author’s influence on the process?Source: www.journaloperationsmanagement.org/
  • 7. JOM Decision Summary Flow ChartJuly 2006 – December 31, 2009 (1307 Total Submissions*) Overall accept rate ~ 8%
  • 8. JOM has Global Reach:Percentage of Downloads for JOM in 2009 - ~500,000 totalpapers per year 18.0% 16.2%16.1% 16.0% Percentage of Articles downloaded in 2009 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.6% 8.0% 5.8% 6.0% 4.8% 4.0% 3.5% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% 2.3% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.0%
  • 9. Publishing is about Good Science …. But it is also a social network
  • 10. Article Downloads – 2009 data Average JOM article is downloaded > 3,000 times in the 1st two years after publication Article Downloads 700,000 662,862 600,000 528,327 500,000 415,106 400,000 302,565 300,000 202,176 200,000 100,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (Projected)
  • 11. Journal Timeliness Average time to decision  Desk reject ~ 9 days  First review ~ 87 days  Second review ~ 49 days  Third review ~ 19 days Time to publication  Available on-line within 1-2 weeks of acceptance  Published within 6 months
  • 12. Be a Reviewer! Journal quality depends on you! 3-4 reviews per year What’s in it for you?  First look at “cutting edge” research  Opportunity to advance the field  Improves your publication potential  “Scopus” access
  • 13. Please don’t be this person!! Sorry, I can’t review that paper because …. Editor Reviewer Incoming PapersBy the way, when will you have the reviews for my paper?
  • 14. Keys to Publication Success Pick an important problem Go the extra 10% on methodology Write clearly and get input of others Turn papers around quickly – max time between submissions = 2 months Think of papers as inventory Aim for top journals  Occasionally settle for a lower journal to get confidence Focus your relationships  Manageable number of journals you review for  Manageable number of co-authors – some at your school, some outside
  • 15. A paper not under review Can Not beaccepted.250 221.64200150 144.7884836 Series110050 0 Average Time with editor Average time with authors
  • 16. Time to publication – 40 JOM articles AS AP 1st Review Time Author: 1st Revision AM 2nd Review Time AJ Author: 2nd Revision 3rd Review time AG Author: 3rd Revision 4th Review time AD Author: 5th Revision AA 5th Review TimePapers A - AU X U R O L I F C All Papers 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Elapsed Time
  • 17. Keys to Publication Success Every professional interaction can later lead to or limit some future opportunity If the wide world is 6 degrees of separation, academia is 1 or 2 Match your projects with an eye to contribution, energy and enthusiasm of partners  Assistant prof = hungry and driven  Associate = successful, but likely either becoming overcommitted or slacking off  Full = proven researcher but squeezed for time Publications are good for their own sake – but will you be proud of it in 5, 10 or 20 years? Focus on core set of journals, but stretch to adjoining fields
  • 18. Service – professional and to yourUniversity Common perception: to be avoided until tenure Reality: you will be asked. Think of it as  A way to learn politics of school  Make connections to other faculty  Gain visibility Professional service  Societies  Journals  Local businesses
  • 19. Teaching Minimize preps to start As you gain experience, branch out Watch for boredome – you get bored = students get bored Incorporate multiple delivery modes  Lecture, discussion, movies, games, simulations